Dennis Ross on The Missing Peace
What went wrong at Camp David? Read Pejman Yousefzadeh’s review of Dennis Ross’s exhaustive book The Missing Peace, a description of what led to the failure of the 2000 negotiations.
It’s difficult to believe that it was only six short years ago that a negotiated peace in the Middle East seemed possible, around the corner, close at hand. Ross, who was Middle East negotiator for the US at Camp David and during the twelve years leading up to it, feels there’s plenty of blame to go around.
But there’s no doubt who the major obstacle was, and that was Arafat. According to Ross, Arafat simply could not countenance ending the conflict; his whole life was built on it as the foundation of his power, and, as Ross stated, to end the conflict is to end himself. So, no deal, no matter how reasonable the concessions, how hardworking and accommodating the diplomats.
Arafat himself is now ended, since no one is immortal, even supreme egotists and power-mad tyrants. But the conflict he refused to end–or to at least ameliorate–shows no signs of abating.
It had always been that way, even when Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize.
In order for peace negotiations to ever have a chance to work both sides have to want peace. Until then you are simply giving the agressive side the time to arm and the ability to choose the time/place that is most advantageous to them.
This is true for any negotiation – both side have to want what is being negotiated for. Same in Iraq, same in lebanon and it’s why quite a bit of the pressure has no affect.
Yup, old ‘Arry was getting just a bit too much money for killing Jews to stop and make peace. I’ve read from several different sources that he had 7 luxary villas and millions upon millions in Swiss banks. It shows how stupid the palis are to not see the obvious ploy of keeping the refugee camps in squalor all these years, providing ample fodder to be used against the Israelis.
Aside from Arafat, The Nobel, proving for once and for all that you can’t, can’t, can’t negotiate with terrorists, Bill Clinton highlighted another truism: when you want something too much (for whatever reason), it is frequently illusive. And it seems he shamelessly wanted to broker this deal on the world stage before leaving office.
In addition, there were enough men in Baruk’s administration–including Israeli foreign minister David Levy who would not travel to Camp David with Baruk at the last minute–who thought Baruk was giving away far too much, too fast to the wrong man with far too few strings attached. In essence Arafat could have set up a new terror training camp in east Jerusalem
if the agreement was finalized.
But fortunately, Arafat was greedy, Clinton over-eager and a few Israelis were courageous enough to take a stand when they saw the potential train wreck ahead.
Conversely, it is iteresting to note the success of the 1979 peace treaty from the Camp David Accords between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli PM Menachem Begin and how it has continued to hold for almost three decades.
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on March 15, 2004, Ross wrote:
* Ross blames “Israeli control” for “Palestinian anger” and “lack of reform.” Instead of insisting that the Palestinian Arabs take responsibility for their own behavior, Ross largely blames Israel for Palestinian Arab violence and corruption, asserting that “the Palestinian reform movement” whose existence is mostly wishful thinking “withers under the weight of the Israeli siege and the chaos that Arafat cultivates.” He claims that “pervasive Israeli control … produces deep anger among Palestinians and keeps the reformers on the defensive.” False. Whatever “control” Israel is forced to exercise is in response to Palestinian Arab terror, not the other way around. Moreover, Ross fails to acknowledge that the Palestinian Arabs’ “anger” is caused by the Palestinian Authority’s constant incitement of anti-Jewish hatred and murder in its official media, schools, speeches, and religious sermons.
* Ross’s article ignores the fundamental problem: the Palestinian Arabs do not accept Israel’s right to exist within any borders. He does not mention that the official maps appearing in PA offices, in the textbooks used in PA schools, and the PA’s official letterhead label all of Israel not just Judea-Samaria-Gaza as “Palestine.” Likewise PA officials’ speeches, the sermons by PA-appointed clergymen, and the teachings in PA children’s summer camps promote the idea that all of Israel is “Palestine.”
* Ross sees Arab terror and Israeli self-defense as morally equivalent. Ross writes: “Israel-Palestinian relations are frozen in a pattern of terror, siege and hopelessness.” Thus, in Ross’s formulation, there is moral equivalency between Palestinian Arab terror and Israeli “sieges” meaning when Israel temporarily surrounds terrorists and their supporters in order to keep them from entering Israeli territory to murder Jews. This is another outrageous falsehood, demonstrating that when it comes to the Arab war against Israel, Ross seems unable to distinguish between murder and self-defense.
* The PA must crack down on terror—but only after Israel withdraws. Ross writes that the U.S. should be “making clear to Palestinians…what is expected of them after withdrawal.” He makes no mention of anything they should be required to do before the withdrawal thus he would hand Gaza to the PA even if it does nothing to fight terror. If the PA is refusing to make concessions even before it gets the land, in order to get the land, why should anyone think the PA will make concessions after they obtain it?
Sounds to me like Ross is using his brain for a change.
During the peace process in question – Ross knew quite well the reasons why Arafat refused what Israel ‘offered’ – not because it would result in his political demise(because it wouldn’t – it would have made him an even larger icon), but because it was simply unacceptable in the terms that were offered.
Which were not
Here’s an exerpt from Uri Averey’s latest column, discussing the Hamas/Fatah potential unification – and it’s conideration of ‘recognizing’ Israel and for the umpteenth time, attempting to bring Israel to the peace table.
“THE SECOND arm of the peace offensive is the renewal of the Arab Peace Plan.
This plan was originally devised by Abdallah, then the Crown Prince and now the King of Saudi Arabia. It was adopted by the summit meeting of the Arab heads of state in Beirut in March 2002.
This plan says, roughly: the entire Arab world will recognize Israel and make peace with it, if it withdraws to the 1967 borders and makes it possible to establish the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The government of Israel has rejected the initiative, as the Hebrew expression goes, “on the threshold” (every peace initiative is rejected “on the threshold”, so as not to allow it, God forbid, to put a foot in the door.) The plan was consigned to a pigeon hole and has been collecting dust ever since. Now the evil Arabs have decided to dust it off and slap it back on the table.
You know, the Baruk proposal may not have been all of what the Palestinians wanted, (it was considered far too much for some Israelis), but it was one thing a “peace process” would have had that all processes must have.
A friggin start.
This would have been easier to negotiate further if one wanted to. I give you something, you give me something…and an “intifada” isnt what I have in mind.
Arafat wasnt the only obstacle to peace. The Palestinians themselves are too tuned into martyrdom and victimization to know what to do with their own ‘homeland’.
Troll:
The “Palestinians” have fought peace every step of the way because they DO NOT WANT peace. They want Israel wiped out. If you were to pay any attention to what is said in Arabic, instead of the pap they feed the West in English, you would know this. But alas, you are the most useful of idiots.
http://www.memri.org
Read it and weep. Or grin, as is more likely for you.
Actually it’s ‘yawn’.
Which part am I suppossed to be reading dumbley?
All of it.
It should be (but won’t for you, blind as ever to the truth) an eye-opener.
I include the link for those who really are interested in what’s actually said by Arab leaders.
“This plan says, roughly: the entire Arab world will recognize Israel and make peace with it, if it withdraws to the 1967 borders and makes it possible to establish the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.”
Which is actually less than what Barak offered Arafat. Barak’s offer included returning 60% of West Jerusalem to Palestine, as well as all of East Jerusalem, and even bisecting Israel so Gaza and the West Bank could have a contiguous territory.
The Palestinians rejected this offer and declared war instead.
I don’t think they would accept the Arab Peace Plan either. At most they would offer a promise that they would immediately break.
It is possible to negotiate with Arabs, but only from the position of strength, when you can inflict them unacceptable damage in case they broke their obligations (as depicted in famous Kipling’s poem “On East and West”. Peace with Egypt holds because of Israel’s possible nuclear retaliation. To deal with Arabs on any other basis is pure insanity.